You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #68: I found FarceOf Nature's post interesting, but not persuasive. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-16-08 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #66
68. I found FarceOf Nature's post interesting, but not persuasive.
Edited on Mon Jun-16-08 11:22 AM by KCabotDullesMarxIII
The tribal culture can have relevance, of course, such as with regard to the age of a young bride in a particular society. The vilification Gerry Lee Lewis suffered from our press on a visit here, particularly since it is a profession notorious for its degeneracy, was, imo, shocking, however non-ideal marrying a post-pubertal 13 year-old can be considered. It was culturally acceptable where they came from and in many other parts of the world. Not that I think it helped his young wife being his cousin! However, I didn't find FON's reference to the tribe with the bizarre initiation ceremony at all relevant. I didn't get the impression that the tribe was given to incest or pedophilia, and suspect that whatever the reality on the ground, they would always be subject to taboos in all societies. Maybe I'm wrong, though.

Of course, I am speaking from a formal (and I suspect, informal) Christian perspective, here - sins are not neatly compartmentalised, but have repercussions in terms of temptations and/or sins, in other, often quite disparate, areas. Moreover, when indulged, the effects are cumulative, until, if unchecked, eventually the person's soul will become inured to sin all together.

I can understand FareOfNature's jurisprudential scruples concerning attributing an intention to harm children in that context, but for the above reason, I believe our intuitive feeling and common-sense, however unquantifiable, form a superior basis, indeed the only sound basis, upon which to view the action of looking at images of naked children. What penal sanctions should apply may well be another matter, particularly given that your society is now Stalinistic and totalitarian, and your prison system, a gulag-archipelago of citizen slave-holdings, surely owned by some of the most evil and sinister businesses in the world.

I've assumed all along that none of the children concerned were being subjected to any physical, sexual violation, which would take it to the level of an evil beyond any other.

My comment about the use of the term, "fat cats" in our countries, (the UK and US) was very sweeping though, as not all rich men, of course, are sharks, but the latter are invariably described in our press as "fat cats", never as "sharks".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC